However, if a label would say "10 peer reviewed and published scientific studies find no evidence that this product works". Now that is convincing.
> However, if a label would say "10 peer reviewed and published scientific studies find no evidence that this product works". Now that is convincing.
I don't think that this is how medical labelling should work. If you want to sell a product on the basis of its effect on your health, then the onus should be on you to prove that it works, not on others to prove that it doesn't. In this setting, I think that a presumption of guilt (ineffectiveness or harmfulness) until proven otherwise is appropriate.
"No scientific evidence this product works" does not mean the same thing as "this product does not work!" People confusing the two is very harmful.
It could mean, for example, "there is plausible mechanism of action but there hasn't been much research on the topic [for whatever reason]" or it could mean "there's absolutely no known mechanism of action, it doesn't make physiological sense, and a century of research has proved it doesn't work." These two statements are obviously not the same!
The fundamental problem I think is that much of society simply doesn't understand what science is, and why it's important, or why they should care about scientific studies in regard to allegedly medicinal products they may use.